Newton's law of gravitational attraction
in [Relativity]
|
From: Y.Porat on 19 Sep 2009 02:21 On Sep 18, 9:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 18, 3:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > PD wrote: > > > On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > >>PD wrote: > > > >>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > >>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > >>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > > >>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > > >>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > > >>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > > >>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > > >>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > > >>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > > >>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > > >>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > > >>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > > >>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > > >>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > > >>>>>your own words". > > >>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > > >>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > > >>>>>blurred distinction? > > > >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > > >>>>aisles! NoEinstein > > > >>>All of them. Imagine! > > >>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > > >>>is based on physics. > > >>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > > >>>biology is based on chemistry. > > >>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > > >>>believed! > > >>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > > >>>probably wrong, too. > > > >>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > > >>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > > >>criteria. > > > > John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > > > licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > > > seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > > > principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > > > the license. > > > And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are > > from the architects who did read the books? > > Apparently so! Because clearly none of those calculations can be close > to right! ------------------ now PD became an expert for buildings as well !!! and all that by his fucken QM !! the man is a pathologic ------- -----Napoleon Bonaparte !!! who thinks he can cheat every one forever !!! poor pupils of his !! Y.P =------------------------
From: PD on 19 Sep 2009 11:35 On Sep 19, 1:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 18, 9:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > PD wrote: > > > > On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > >>PD wrote: > > > > >>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > >>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > > > >>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > > > >>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > > > >>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > > > >>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > > > >>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > > > >>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > > > >>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > > > >>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > > > >>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > > > >>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > > > >>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > > > >>>>>your own words". > > > >>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > > > >>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > > > >>>>>blurred distinction? > > > > >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > > > >>>>aisles! NoEinstein > > > > >>>All of them. Imagine! > > > >>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > > > >>>is based on physics. > > > >>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > > > >>>biology is based on chemistry. > > > >>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > > > >>>believed! > > > >>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > > > >>>probably wrong, too. > > > > >>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > > > >>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > > > >>criteria. > > > > > John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > > > > licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > > > > seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > > > > principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > > > > the license. > > > > And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are > > > from the architects who did read the books? > > > Apparently so! Because clearly none of those calculations can be close > > to right! > > ------------------ > now PD became an expert for buildings as well !!! > and all that by his fucken QM !! > the man is a pathologic ------- > > -----Napoleon Bonaparte !!! > who thinks he can cheat every one What cheat? You asked me how to calculate the volume of an atom, and I told you. It's a simple exercise in any freshman chemistry text. > forever !!! > poor pupils of his !! > > Y.P > =------------------------
From: Y.Porat on 19 Sep 2009 12:17 On Sep 19, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 19, 1:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 18, 9:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Sep 18, 3:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > PD wrote: > > > > > On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > > > > >>PD wrote: > > > > > >>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > >>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > > > > >>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > > > > >>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > > > > >>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > > > > >>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > > > > >>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > > > > >>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > > > > >>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > > > > >>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > > > > >>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived.. In > > > > >>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > > > > >>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > > > > >>>>>your own words". > > > > >>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > > > > >>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > > > > >>>>>blurred distinction? > > > > > >>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > > > > >>>>aisles! NoEinstein > > > > > >>>All of them. Imagine! > > > > >>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > > > > >>>is based on physics. > > > > >>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > > > > >>>biology is based on chemistry. > > > > >>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > > > > >>>believed! > > > > >>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > > > > >>>probably wrong, too. > > > > > >>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > > > > >>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > > > > >>criteria. > > > > > > John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > > > > > licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > > > > > seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > > > > > principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > > > > > the license. > > > > > And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are > > > > from the architects who did read the books? > > > > Apparently so! Because clearly none of those calculations can be close > > > to right! > > > ------------------ > > now PD became an expert for buildings as well !!! > > and all that by his fucken QM !! > > the man is a pathologic ------- > > > -----Napoleon Bonaparte !!! > > who thinks he can cheat every one > > What cheat? You asked me how to calculate the volume of an atom, and I > told you. > It's a simple exercise in any freshman chemistry text. > > > forever !!! > > poor pupils of his !! > > > Y.P > > =------------------------ you forgot to say that i sked you tocalculate the volume of the Atom based on your shell theory isit possible that you ddint understand what i am talking about 2 i asked youas well tobring a clacualtion thwat shows that based on your shell model toshow a calcualtion that will show that teh Atom of Al MUST HAVE THE SAME VOLUME AS SAY Au ie Gold (and a tom with 13 electrons around it is according to you must have the same volume as that og Gold with 79 electrons and muchmore 'shells' around it!! if you say it is easy you ether dont know about what youare talking about or yiou are a crook just one of the problems fo rthat is how differnt electons in different shells repel each other !! **in all 3D direction even that 'simple problem is shells repalling themselves* in all 3 dimensions * those that are beside them those that are above and below them etc and all that in additionto the Attraction of the positive charge of the nuc and that i s only one of many other oroblems !!! another problem is why should there be a screening effect of closer shells on those further away!! i can promis you that even God would not take control on that turmoil it seems much better that you dont have a green ideal about waht is going on there !!! (by your fantastic model) remember that word 'fantastic ' !!(lunatic ) and if you don thave that calcualtion just show a quote you can ask the hjelp of all universites of the world but still dont forget totellthem that they must 'fiddle ' their calculation to show that Al volume is the same as Au btw if i am not wrong you said jsut lately that heavy atoms have a bigger involume than light one is it not the common paradigm !! ?? )is it not more 'reasonable ' (:-) yet we find that not only thAT * SOME* OF THEM (in our case Al and Au as a sample ) are not bigger but practically the ***same** volume !! is it the common paradigm and 'common sense """""??? (:-) TIA Y.Porat ---------------------
From: doug on 19 Sep 2009 13:54 Y.Porat wrote: > On Sep 19, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>On Sep 19, 1:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>On Sep 18, 9:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>On Sep 18, 3:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>PD wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>PD wrote: >> >>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: >> >>>>>>>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to >>>>>>>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made >>>>>>>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic >>>>>>>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my >>>>>>>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce >>>>>>>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything >>>>>>>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status >>>>>>>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any >>>>>>>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In >>>>>>>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! � NoEinstein � >> >>>>>>>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in >>>>>>>>>>your own words". >>>>>>>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the >>>>>>>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a >>>>>>>>>>blurred distinction? >> >>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION >>>>>>>>>aisles! � NoEinstein � >> >>>>>>>>All of them. Imagine! >>>>>>>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry >>>>>>>>is based on physics. >>>>>>>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of >>>>>>>>biology is based on chemistry. >>>>>>>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be >>>>>>>>believed! >>>>>>>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is >>>>>>>>probably wrong, too. >> >>>>>>>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they >>>>>>>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own >>>>>>>criteria. >> >>>>>>John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the >>>>>>licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but >>>>>>seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural >>>>>>principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get >>>>>>the license. >> >>>>>And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are >>>>>from the architects who did read the books? >> >>>>Apparently so! Because clearly none of those calculations can be close >>>>to right! >> >>>------------------ >>>now PD became an expert for buildings as well !!! >>>and all that by his fucken QM !! >>>the man is a pathologic ------- >> >>>-----Napoleon Bonaparte !!! >>>who thinks he can cheat every one >> >>What cheat? You asked me how to calculate the volume of an atom, and I >>told you. >>It's a simple exercise in any freshman chemistry text. >> >> >>>forever !!! >>>poor pupils of his !! >> >>>Y.P >>>=------------------------ > > you forgot to say that i sked you tocalculate the volume of the Atom > based on your shell theory > isit possible that you ddint understand what i am talking about > > 2 > i asked youas well > tobring a clacualtion thwat shows that > based on your shell model > toshow a calcualtion > that will show that teh Atom > of Al > MUST HAVE THE SAME VOLUME AS SAY Au > ie Gold > (and a tom with 13 electrons around it > is according to you must have the same volume > as that og Gold with > 79 electrons and muchmore 'shells' around it!! > if you say it is easy > you ether dont know about what youare talking about > or yiou are a crook > just one of the problems fo rthat > is > how differnt electons Since you cannot even write a coherent sentence, it is not surprising that you cannot do any science. > in different shells > repel each other !! > **in all 3D direction > even that 'simple problem > is > shells repalling themselves* in all 3 dimensions * > those that are beside them > those that are above and > below them etc > and all that in additionto the > Attraction of the positive charge of the nuc > and that i s only one of many > other oroblems !!! > another problem is > why should there be a screening effect > of closer shells on those > further away!! > i can promis you that even God > would not take control on that > turmoil > it seems much better > that you dont have a green ideal > about waht is going on there !!! > (by your fantastic model) > remember that word > 'fantastic ' !!(lunatic ) > > and if you don thave that calcualtion > just show a quote > you can ask the hjelp of all > universites of the world > but still dont forget totellthem > that they must 'fiddle ' their calculation to show that > Al volume is the same as Au > btw > if i am not wrong you said jsut lately that > heavy atoms have a bigger > involume than light one > is it not the common paradigm !! ?? > )is it not more 'reasonable ' (:-) > yet we find that > not only thAT * SOME* OF THEM (in our case Al and Au as a sample ) > are not bigger > but practically the ***same** volume !! > is it the common paradigm > and 'common sense """""??? (:-) Well, if you would even look at a chemistry book, you would start to see how stupid you look. But it seems easier for you to have tantrums. > > TIA > Y.Porat > --------------------- >
From: Y.Porat on 19 Sep 2009 13:49
On Sep 19, 7:54 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > Y.Porat wrote: > > On Sep 19, 5:35 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>On Sep 19, 1:21 am, "Y.Porat" <y.y.po...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>On Sep 18, 9:56 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>On Sep 18, 3:38 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>>PD wrote: > > >>>>>>On Sep 18, 3:07 pm, doug <x...(a)xx.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>PD wrote: > > >>>>>>>>On Sep 18, 1:09 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 6:22 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>On Sep 16, 4:58 pm, NoEinstein <noeinst...(a)bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>On Sep 14, 5:32 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: > > >>>>>>>>>>>Einstein "made-up-out-of-thin-air" the infinite energy needed (sic) to > >>>>>>>>>>>get even a tiny mass to travel to velocity 'c'. What you call "made > >>>>>>>>>>>up", in my case, is objective reasoning ability and teleologic > >>>>>>>>>>>projection (reasoning so as to see the unseen). I have put into my > >>>>>>>>>>>own words a history of Einstein's blunders, and how I came to deduce > >>>>>>>>>>>the true, new science for the Universe. Have YOU ever put anything > >>>>>>>>>>>about science into your own words? You can't, because the dead status > >>>>>>>>>>>quo is all that you know. When you can express yourself regarding any > >>>>>>>>>>>area of science as good as I can, then, you will have arrived. In > >>>>>>>>>>>your DREAMS, that is! NoEinstein > > >>>>>>>>>>I think you have confused "making stuff up" with "putting science in > >>>>>>>>>>your own words". > >>>>>>>>>>You do know that the fiction aisles and the nonfiction aisles in the > >>>>>>>>>>bookstore are in separate places, right? Or is reality and fantasy a > >>>>>>>>>>blurred distinction? > > >>>>>>>>>Dear PD, the Parasite Dunce: All physics texts are in the FICTION > >>>>>>>>>aisles! NoEinstein > > >>>>>>>>All of them. Imagine! > >>>>>>>>Must be true of the chemistry texts, too, since so much of chemistry > >>>>>>>>is based on physics. > >>>>>>>>And that must be true of the biology texts, too, since so much of > >>>>>>>>biology is based on chemistry. > >>>>>>>>Why, there's absolutely nothing in science books at all that can be > >>>>>>>>believed! > >>>>>>>>All that stuff about levers they taught you in the 3rd grade is > >>>>>>>>probably wrong, too. > > >>>>>>>This means all the architecture texts must be wrong since they > >>>>>>>rely on physics as well. That makes john a fraud by his own > >>>>>>>criteria. > > >>>>>>John would be happy to tell you that he pulled the wool over the > >>>>>>licensing board by doing what he had to in order to be licensed, but > >>>>>>seeing right through all the mistakes in those architectural > >>>>>>principles from the very beginning. He was only playing along to get > >>>>>>the license. > > >>>>>And so all the buildings that are falling down around us are > >>>>>from the architects who did read the books? > > >>>>Apparently so! Because clearly none of those calculations can be close > >>>>to right! > > >>>------------------ > >>>now PD became an expert for buildings as well !!! > >>>and all that by his fucken QM !! > >>>the man is a pathologic ------- > > >>>-----Napoleon Bonaparte !!! > >>>who thinks he can cheat every one > > >>What cheat? You asked me how to calculate the volume of an atom, and I > >>told you. > >>It's a simple exercise in any freshman chemistry text. > > >>>forever !!! > >>>poor pupils of his !! > > >>>Y.P > >>>=------------------------ > > > you forgot to say that i sked you tocalculate the volume of the Atom > > based on your shell theory > > isit possible that you ddint understand what i am talking about > > > 2 > > i asked youas well > > tobring a clacualtion thwat shows that > > based on your shell model > > toshow a calcualtion > > that will show that teh Atom > > of Al > > MUST HAVE THE SAME VOLUME AS SAY Au > > ie Gold > > (and a tom with 13 electrons around it > > is according to you must have the same volume > > as that og Gold with > > 79 electrons and muchmore 'shells' around it!! > > if you say it is easy > > you ether dont know about what youare talking about > > or yiou are a crook > > just one of the problems fo rthat > > is > > how differnt electons > > Since you cannot even write a coherent sentence, > it is not surprising that you cannot do any > science. > > > > > in different shells > > repel each other !! > > **in all 3D direction > > even that 'simple problem > > is > > shells repalling themselves* in all 3 dimensions * > > those that are beside them > > those that are above and > > below them etc > > and all that in additionto the > > Attraction of the positive charge of the nuc > > and that i s only one of many > > other oroblems !!! > > another problem is > > why should there be a screening effect > > of closer shells on those > > further away!! > > i can promis you that even God > > would not take control on that > > turmoil > > it seems much better > > that you dont have a green ideal > > about waht is going on there !!! > > (by your fantastic model) > > remember that word > > 'fantastic ' !!(lunatic ) > > > and if you don thave that calcualtion > > just show a quote > > you can ask the hjelp of all > > universites of the world > > but still dont forget totellthem > > that they must 'fiddle ' their calculation to show that > > Al volume is the same as Au > > btw > > if i am not wrong you said jsut lately that > > heavy atoms have a bigger > > involume than light one > > is it not the common paradigm !! ?? > > )is it not more 'reasonable ' (:-) > > yet we find that > > not only thAT * SOME* OF THEM (in our case Al and Au as a sample ) > > are not bigger > > but practically the ***same** volume !! > > is it the common paradigm > > and 'common sense """""??? (:-) > > Well, if you would even look at a chemistry > book, you would start to see how stupid you look. > But it seems easier for you to have tantrums. > > > > > TIA > > Y.Porat > > --------------------- (:-) dont hand wave fuken crook !! bring details !!! to back up your claims we dot need here the new Josf Goebbels in a physics ng !! show calculations that will prove( based on your current shell theory) what should be the volume of Al and what should be that of Ag that is very simple English !!! Y.P ------------------------ Y.P ---------------- |